Imagine running through an orchard grabbing fruit as you go. After you finish, you look back and decide to take a very large bag and stroll slowly through again, carrying a ladder picking the best fruit you can find.

Darwin's Dangerous Idea is the firImagine running through an orchard grabbing fruit as you go. After you finish, you look back and decide to take a very large bag and stroll slowly through again, carrying a ladder picking the best fruit you can find.

Darwin's Dangerous Idea is the first book I have ever read twice in a row. Dennett is a master of clear thinking and builds his case through logic, but he surveys a very large territory and I felt upon finishing my first read, that I hadn't grasped all he had to say. The second read was as enjoyable but more satisfying than the first, but rather than carrying a ladder, I pulled out a highlighter.

I've always been impressed with Charles Darwin and believe that his thoughts on evolution are as significant to the advance of knowledge as the discovery of how to make fire was to the advance of civilization.

For the roughly 6 million years since our branch of the tree of life separated from the ancestors we have in common with chimps and bonobos, humanity has lived in ignorance of the reality of how the world around us has come to be.

Because of the unbearable anxiety that went with ignorance, it was mandatory that something be thought up to explain things and religions fit the bill. The profound difference for those who have lived within the last 150 years, is that mythology can be put aside for truth. As far as we know, we, on our little planet, exhibit for the first time the universe coming to understand itself. For all the number of earth-like planets that may be out there, we don't have a shred of evidence to date that we are not all alone.

Life must be rare, if not unique to Earth. The dangerous idea that Dennett writes about is that insensate matter has, through blind unguided experimentation under a system of order (chemistry and physics) with the aid of inconceivable amounts of time, started itself and then developed to the incredible variety of life we see today through natural selection.

Dennett calls this idea a universal acid because it puts holes in all of the tales we have told ourselves about a god above and our place apart from other life on earth. It's comforting to believe that there is a benevolent creator and overseer, that there is a "me" that is not entirely held within the physical body, yet nobody has ever come up with even the slightest proof that our fond desires have anything to do with the reality of our being.

With great patience and a delightful sense of humor, Dennett methodically dismantles every attempt to falsify Darwin's idea. Even many scientists, he tells us, are reluctant to part with the idea of a "skyhook", an external, inexplicable agent that has somehow intervened to bring us to our condition of mind-directedness independent of natural selection.

We are definitely special for having language and consciousness and culture. Dennett is not belittling mankind, far from it! He sees that we are not the helpless automatons that animals are - going through the motions of life without the ability to benefit from the rich store of information that we humans have built up and readily communicate to each other. We are the masters of our fate because we have the world of ideas that transcends our genetic recipe. There is no cause for despair, but there is cause to be wary of those who would like to return to the comforts of mythology.

Darwin's Dangerous Idea is not a quick and easy read, but that is because it is so carefully crafted for the mind to follow. You cannot be distracted since an idea will be carried through several pages and you need to follow the logic. The language is not technical, Dennett peppers the text with everyday phrases. He carefully defines his terms but you have to note those definitions because the terms will pop up again and again.

Most enjoyable are his mind experiments, his constructions made for the reader to better understand a point. What if you were going to go under suspended animation for centuries and had to design a robot to get you through that period of time? What characteristics would you give it to best assure your survival? The book is loaded with delights for the imagination.

If you want revelation, put the bible aside and get a copy of this book. You won't need a shaman or a priest to "interpret" for you, all you need is to pay attention to find out how even what seem to be the most impenetrable mysteries fall open to clarity when viewed with the dangerous idea of Darwin's that turns out to be illuminating (and subject to proof) in so many areas.

The internet allows opinions to be freely expressed. It's to be expected that most opinions will be ill informed, often angry tirades that don't bear reading, products of ignorance rather than wisdom. Rarely, it's possible to find carefully considereThe internet allows opinions to be freely expressed. It's to be expected that most opinions will be ill informed, often angry tirades that don't bear reading, products of ignorance rather than wisdom. Rarely, it's possible to find carefully considered, informed opinions. Part of the pleasure of surfing the net comes from the discovery of worthy opinions.

Tom Engelhardt has had a blog of his opinions called TomDispatch for many years that I have been reading because it falls into the latter category. The United States of Fear produces his views on paper and, like the blog, is well worth reading.

Engelhardt is an example of the effect of early environment on the growth of the mind. He was born in the 40's into downtown Manhattan, in a controlled rent apartment that placed him at the center of American urban culture. The son of a bitter vet of WW2, and a mother who drew cartoons and graphics for a leftist publication, the low income of the family left him on his own to find amusement. He discovered the world in a way not possible for most Americans who grow up in a rather restricted intellectual environment; educated by the foreign cinema being shown in movie houses within walking distance of home. So avid was his attendance that one theater owner told him he could attend any movie for free. In this way, challenging ideas presented to his eyes opened his mind.

American films of the time had simple plots on shallow subject matter inevitably ending on an upbeat note that would allow viewers to leave smiling and satisfied. Foreign fare, with such movies as Hiroshima, Mon Amour were (still are) more likely to cause discomfort, even nightmares, but from a dip into unease comes questioning of the way things are. I wondered as I read if his parents would have allowed the movie-going if they had known about it. Readers will be glad they didn't.

Engelhardt is outraged at the America we have, which he sees heading ever deeper into foreign military adventures blinded by self-righteousness, an arrogance that the American way is unquestionably superior to all others. This book is common sense from a person steeped in the facts that run beneath the surface of what most would call news. He can cite statistics on how many military bases we have overseas because he keeps track of such things. He makes a point of analyzing the policies of the government based on what it does, not simply by the message it wants us to believe.

He makes a convincing case to me, yet I doubt that the over-reach he describes is anywhere near the collapse he sees. I cannot understand his choice of title. I was expecting him to write about the fear mongering that results in ever more power for the NSA, the CIA, the FBI and authority in general, but the topic is hardly mentioned. This is doubly strange because fear mongering makes possible much of what he laments.

This book has no bibliography. It's pure opinion, not scholarly, but very readable. At no point did I consider his views unwarranted or absurd. Engelhardt makes a case that we've gone overboard and, rather than attempting to get back on board, are diving in deeper with virtually no-one suggesting an alternative. His slam-dunk moment comes when he writes of how Barack Obama and George W. Bush could not be two more different people, yet their policies in office are little different, evidence of systemic momentum that specific occupants of the White House seem powerless to alter....more

"After hearing about this book on NPR's Morning Edition and Tom Ashbrook's On-Point, I decided it sounded like a book I needed to read. I tried to approach it with the caution that a possibly over-hyped new book about current events deserves. As I..."
Read more of this review »

"Of all the accounts of the Crusades I've read, this one strikes the best balance between being comprehensive and being readable. Oldenbourg goes into more detail, Mackay's long chapter in Extraordinary Popular Delusions is written with more humour..."
Read more of this review »

"Awestruck may be the best way to describe how I felt upon reading this book the first time. So how did I feel upon reading it the second time? I just want to bow at Tim O'Brien's feet while muttering a Wayne's World style "I'm not worthy, I'm not..."
Read more of this review »

Remember Linus in the Peanuts comic strip? He carried a blanket for security. The Rolling Stones sang "Gimme Shelter" and who doesn't have anxieties from time to time? The best way to raise a child is in a secure home where self-confidence is built iRemember Linus in the Peanuts comic strip? He carried a blanket for security. The Rolling Stones sang "Gimme Shelter" and who doesn't have anxieties from time to time? The best way to raise a child is in a secure home where self-confidence is built in an atmosphere of safety provided by parents. We are fragile. While we may think ourselves made of steel when we are young, it is a delusion that, while useful to power us through tough times in life, can be undermined beyond recovery. Combat is the perfect solvent.

Most people do not live in fear and are able to stay sane because they are confident of their surroundings and of the people with whom they interact. We all expect that 24 hours from now our world will be like yesterday and today.

But war takes all of this away. It kicks out all the psychological foundations that keep us mentally in place leaving only the support of the group to keep each individual from losing his grip.

The power of Tim O'Brien's writing comes from his recognition of the uneasy state of the combat soldier. He moves in and out of concrete reality just as the soldier cannot restrain fantasies brought on by the the continual and unpredictable appearance of death, either in the form of a buddy talking one minute and being a bloody piece of meat the next, or an enemy brought down in a firefight and discovered to be a mere boy. There is no certainty, no security. The next step on that dirt road could be the loss of both legs or life itself, so why didn't you do something you put off earlier in life? Why are you here? How can you be so powerfully armed with weaponry and yet be powerless? Most of all, how can you turn off your head?

Ominous thoughts churn at every moment. No events, no surroundings ground them, in fact, events and surroundings reinforce them. Only by simplifying everything with humor, cynicism and profanity can this hellish mental state be endured. It is no wonder that so many come back to civilian life unable to readjust, unable to distinguish sanity from madness, to conform to "normal" behavior that could not exist in combat. Far from the military "making a man of him" as was often said, the war experience kills the life a man could have had, even if he returns without apparent injury.

How should a war story be told if it is authentic to the experience of the grunt?

Here is O'Brien:

"A true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior, nor restrain men from doing the things men have always done. If a story seems moral, do not believe it. If at the end of a war story you feel uplifted, or you feel that some small bit of rectitude has been salvaged from the larger waste, then you have been made the victim of a very old and terrible lie. There is no rectitude whatsoever. There is no virtue. As a first rule of thumb, therefore, you can tell a true war story by its absolute and uncompromising allegiance to obscenity and evil."

It is waste that this book is about, how various personalities confront that waste, attempt to resist it even as they must contribute to it and become part of it. The things they carried are the thoughts they carried and the thoughts they carried is the burden they took on that could not be dropped short of death. Going into combat crosses a bridge that is destroyed in the process. One may survive, but there is no return to what was.

O'Brien gives the details of this process. This is one of the most powerful books I've read....more

It isn't often that I get the treat of having someone carefully work out the reasoning behind an argument for my reading pleasure. Most of what we call argument is the empty process of throwing dirt at others while expressing shallow opinions that haIt isn't often that I get the treat of having someone carefully work out the reasoning behind an argument for my reading pleasure. Most of what we call argument is the empty process of throwing dirt at others while expressing shallow opinions that have little to support them. A real debate is a treasure, the only ones I know of taking place at universities by debate teams. A skilled debater can easily take apart what on the surface seems like a good argument. But for almost everyone, logic comes far behind emotion when taking a stand.

This book has only the author to make his case, but his care in doing so is here for all of us to consider. We should do so because the survival of other species than our own is an important subject that is not being addressed by our leaders, whose motto appears to be "keep on regardless".

What should we do about our relatives that share a common origin with us on this planet and are the result, as much as we are, of millions of years of evolution? Does it make sense that a human being who can live no more than a century at best can, through private property rights, take a life form to the point of extinction? How can species last when the environment they depend on is divided up into so many parcels with each human owner saying "it is mine alone".

McCord goes into detail about what an individual is allowed to do vs the greater good of society and how the law looks at this.

But the root issue is: should we save species or not? As a matter of utility, the forms of life that are highest on the food chain like us are of no use. What does it matter if we lose the giraffe, the gorilla, the tiger and the elephant? While a case could be made that microbes are definitely beneficial and necessary for our well-being, those all-but-invisible species are not in danger of extinction. As for meat production, we know we can sustain a production system that may be hellish for pigs and chickens but works fine for us.

How about the ethical view? Should we save species because we respect them as persons like we are and treat them as we treat each other? McCord won't accept this. His claim is that animals are not ethical subjects because they have no ability to know morality. The do what it is necessary for them to survive without regard for the golden rule. They would as soon eat us or displace us as not. Nature is, as has been said, red in tooth and claw.

Then what's left? Who cares if we lose the diversity of life on Earth? McCord tells us that it is our intellectual need, our insatiable curiosity to know that would be most impoverished with the loss of other species. Each one is a record of the past with something to tell us about our environment. Each one holds a wealth of information about life itself, adaption and survival under all kinds of circumstances along with a wealth of behaviors different from but informative about our own. Of course, species hold this value in spite of their own inability to appreciate it or understand it...only we can do that.

McCord asks us to ask ourselves the question "what kind of person would allow the extinction of species that have come to be over millions of years of evolution, when, for all we know, the universe is dead with the exception of life on earth?" The species are gifts of information the study of which provides us with intellectual delight. Once gone, there is no bringing them back.

I think he makes a good case. But there are many good cases that do not translate to action, not because they are unfounded, but because they are not persuasive. I cannot conceive of his argument making any headway with the bulk of humanity whose primary concern is getting on, improving their situation financially and having families.

Do you remember the movie Silent Running with Bruce Dern? Earth had sent out spacecraft to keep species alive in deep space because they could no longer be kept alive on earth due to human development. In the end, the expense was considered too much and these deep space colonies were ordered destroyed. That movie was as realistic as science fiction can be because it accurately reflected reality.

My own feeling is that all higher life forms are doomed and will only survive if they are kept going in zoos. Making money off of private property will finish them off and there will be little regret beyond the small part of humanity that actively engages with nature either through contact or by study.

I fully agree with McCord that this will be a tragedy that will impoverish human intellectual life, but that will be accepted as we continue on with our concern about increasing the human lifespan and gradually replacing our "natural" bodies with artificial replacements, already seen with arms and legs and vocal cords as we move toward replacing eyes and ears and eventually the brain. McCord makes a very good case that other species are an endless source of fascination for humanity, so many wonders of creation, but what he fails to mention is our primary fascination is with our own kind. Our civilization is all about us.

I closed the book respecting his argument but convinced that it will be swept aside (disregarded) along with the other arguments for species preservation that he skilfully addresses. Evolution is survival of the fittest. Humanity has proven itself master of the planet. We may blow the whole thing, are very likely to do so, but I just don't see any real consideration for other species holding us back. There are millions of people with good hearts and good intentions but money and development will prevail. We love animals but we love the goodies that mass production and industry bring us even more.

As McCord so wisely states, we put almost no value on "future generations" or what might happen even in as little as 100 years. It is too abstract. But we do value very highly immediate gratification, mass consumption, comfort and convenience. Human lives over 99% of the time homo sapiens has been around has been a struggle against the adversities of nature. Only in the last 100 years have we arrived at a point where long term health and enjoyment of life are real for a good portion of humanity. Other species are still out there struggling. To keep up our standard of life, we will very likely end their struggle - with extinction....more

History is filled with remarkable stories but none that I have come across tells of such an incredible adventure as the Crusades. For over 200 years starting in 1098 CE, Europeans attempted to take and hold the Holy Land from those who they considereHistory is filled with remarkable stories but none that I have come across tells of such an incredible adventure as the Crusades. For over 200 years starting in 1098 CE, Europeans attempted to take and hold the Holy Land from those who they considered the infidel - the Muslims. Just when you would think they'd give up, the effort would be renewed, including an absurd "children's crusade" led by a fifteen year old that hoped to see Muslims abandon Jerusalem at the sight of thousands of pious unarmed children. As it happened, the kids never made it, being sold into slavery long before reaching Jerusalem.

Most amazing of all, after countless battles between Christians and Muslims over decades, the Mongols swept in out of Asia, put the Muslims to flight and then offered the entire Holy Land to the Christian Crusaders as a gift. Yet, in one of the greatest ironies of all time, the Christian presence had by that time dwindled to such a tiny population that there was no hope of holding the prize...there were hardly enough knights to hold even one city, let alone a dozen.

Talk about big names-the kings of France and England joined the cause. Richard the Lionhearted cemented his fame in Crusade battles. Disputes broke out about who should be crowned king of Jerusalem and greed drove nobles to over-extend themselves trying to grab additional land.

It was a call from the Byzantine emperor to a European noble to come defend against the Turks that started the whole thing and, something I had not known, the very first Crusade was the most successful - it was able to take Jerusalem and most of the Holy Land, keeping it for several decades, even to the point of creating "counties".

This book is very readable for a history. Payne doesn't get deeply into detail, offering only enough background to tell the story. This may leave some history fans disappointed, such as those who might be expecting a masterwork such as those produced by Barbara Tuchman or David McCulloch that delve deeply into personalities and the background on events. Payne is more like a journalist, wishing only to get the story out as clearly and concisely as possible and he succeeds. You will never find yourself struggling to turn the pages as there is more than enough action to pull you on. If anything, I found myself thinking, "oh no, not another battle!"

I was also reminded of how things haven't changed too much in the last 1000 years in the Middle East - there is still, at least on one side, the invocation of God and much talk about his will, the slaughter of innocents, beheadings and sieges. How many months have we been reading about the give and take in the suburbs of Damascus? In 2014, over 75,000 died in the Syrian civil war. Israel talks of Jerusalem being "the eternal capital of the Jews" and is trying to expel the Muslims as surely as the Crusaders, witness the recent wholesale massacre of defenseless Gazans in the name of defense.

The Dream and the Tomb is a great read. Better maps would be appreciated but the story itself is well told....more

George Packer is the author of the excellent "Blood of the Liberals" (reviewed). Because I enjoyed that book, I read The Unwinding.

This work is a view of the changes in American life since the 1950's, called an unwinding because of the crumbling of tGeorge Packer is the author of the excellent "Blood of the Liberals" (reviewed). Because I enjoyed that book, I read The Unwinding.

This work is a view of the changes in American life since the 1950's, called an unwinding because of the crumbling of the agreement between management and unions over the distribution of wealth.

Without foreign competition in cheap labor, American businesses and unions had come to a stand-off that created a reasonable distribution of wealth. Business was not under pressure beyond that between domestic companies that shared the idea of keeping on a steady course. General Motors, for example, could crank out several brands of mediocre vehicles year after year because so did Ford and Chrysler, but at the same time good wages would reach the public providing for the purchase of those vehicles.

I am not a strong supporter of unions because I don't believe they are out for the working person in general, only for their particular group of working people. In the 1950's, unions had achieved a degree of power (along with corruption) that allowed them to bring the country to a halt through strikes in critical industries like the railroads, steel or trucking. The good of the population as a whole was disregarded in favor of demands that were sometimes outrageous, such as the practice of "featherbedding" where the size of a work crew had to be maintained even though technical advances had made a smaller crew possible. Railroad firemen, who had historically stoked the boilers of steam engines but who were not needed on diesel locomotives, were kept on to simply sit there drawing pay if the union had its way. This was pure inefficiency, but the money did get spread around.

The fact remains that without unions there is no effective counter to the power of the wealthy managers of business to have their way - increasing their pay through networking of members of boards of directors with no say from the public. The Walton children can be paid millions for having the name Walton, while the workers at Walmart, for the lack of a union, get less than the minimum wage.

The Unwinding follows the lives of several individuals: a production worker, an entrepreneur, a Silicon Valley whiz, a political worker for Joe Biden. Along with these detailed (and fascinating) stories are stock stories, that the author took from other sources, of some famous and wealthy folks such as Sam Walton, Oprah Winfrey, and Jay-Z as examples of what Americans would call success.

What grabs the attention of the reader is the true-to-life account of "stuff happens". Though hard work can be rewarded and initiative is superior to sloth, the fact is that chance, happenstance and the unpredictable have a huge impact on success, though we would all love to believe that success is all due to effort. This is the real point of the book - that it is the background level of prosperity that determines the average quality of life for the population - and the level America had at one time has collapsed.

The life story that ties everything together is of Dean Price, a guy who gets a great idea to develop bio-diesel fuel. What could possibly go wrong? His story alone would make a great book. The Unwinding closes in an upbeat way, but though only a couple of years have passed since the book was written, readers who keep up on the economy will see perfect irony in the ending.

I've never read a book more apt for the times, more sympathetic to the plight of the average Joe, or more convincing of the need to spread the wealth, one way or another, to hold society together....more